-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Renaming proposition #745
Comments
For the admin user, do we want to put some role, because right now admin is too broad of a type ? |
Yes we do, eventually, none of us should be admin, but we should all have permissions of some kind. We have all the framework for this and we have interviewer/validator roles, but we stopped there as it was enough at the time and didn't get time to work on it... |
Sounds good for the renaming. But is that exhaustive enough? What about the case of somebody visualizing the audits (in the You think of OD surveys, but there are many others where we may just want to manually [in]validate them without giving right to edit. |
I think we can still do better renaming and separating users/permissions |
Roles/permissions and renaming are 2 separate things anyway. |
New proposition: Evolution Platform NomenclatureProcess NamesInterview Process
Post-Interview Processing
Monitoring and export
Role Names
Role-Process Relationships
Notes
|
@tahini Waiting for our review :-) |
Proposition for renaming classes, attributes and actions, plus users categories:
Naming conventions
Interview manipulation by use case:
Users:
Please discuss if you agree, and if not, propose better (If you don't like a name, propose a better one :-) )
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: